Imelda was convicted on a law that doesn’t exist: Conviction nothing but a demolition job —former diplomat

Veteran Journalist Rigoberto Tiglao of the Manila Times said that former first lady was convicted based on a law that doesn’t exist. The Sandiganbayan decision was not aimed to punish Mrs. Marcos for her past crimes, but to demonize their names to thwart the Marcoses’ political ascension in the coming election.

Non Existent Law

In his column in the Manila Times, journalist Rigoberto Tiglao exposed how the Sandiganbayan, with the help of the Yellows and the Reds, committed a legal contortion so as to arrive to a guilty verdict. Imelda Marcos was convicted on a law that doesn’t even exist.

Tiglao said that Imelda Marcos was convicted based on a technicality not even present on the current constitution, but on the 1973 “Marcos” constitution. The Sandiganbayan said Marcos was guilty of participating in a business entity while holding a Cabinet position. However, the provision in the 1973 constitution that “bans Cabinet members from participating in any business” was already deleted in the 1987 Constitution that we now have.

Rigoberto Tiglao

Political Propaganda

Tiglao further explained that the obviously rushed decision by the Sandiganbayan is nothing but a political propaganda led by the Yellows and the Reds for a more specific purpose. To destroy the names of the Marcoses. The decision will somehow pressure the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to rule against Ferdinand “BongBong” Marcos as the real winner in the 2016 Vice Presidential race.

Another purpose is to discourage the people from voting Imee Marcos in the coming senatorial elections. Basing on the surveys, Imee Marcos is one of the strong contenders in the senatorial elections next year.

Supreme Court Reversal

Journalist Tiglao stated that while the Sandiganbayan’s decision is weak and may likely be reversed by the Supreme Court, the Yellows and the Reds have accomplished their goal. They have smirched the reputation of the Marcoses.

Here are some of the notable excerpts from Tiglao's column:

"The decision was obviously rushed, and is likely to be reversed by the Supreme Court, since it has already a precedent — issued just last June — that dismissed basically similar charges against Imelda.""But a Supreme Court reversal isn’t really important. The decision has two aims.One is to demonize the Marcoses so as to pressure the Presidential Electoral Tribunal not to rule that Ferdinand Marcos Jr. really won as vice president in the 2016 elections. Indeed, Vice President Leni Robredo was so quick as to complain about why the 89-year-old grandmother was allowed to post bail. A second aim is to convince people not to vote to the Senate Imelda’s daughter Imee who, going by the polls, is among the frontrunners in that election next year.""In short, Imelda has been convicted by the Sandiganbayan on a law that doesn’t exist.Basta! the Sandiganbayan justices seem to be saying. Imelda is guilty of a 1960 law “in relation” to that provision in the 1973 Constitution.It just boggles the mind. That provision in the 1973 Constitution, which imposes a ban on a Cabinet member “participating in the management of any business” was deleted in the 1987 Constitution.How in the world could Imelda be convicted in 2018 for charges filed in 1991 to 1993, for alleged crimes committed from 1968 to 1970 (when the foundations were organized) based on a provision in the 1973 Constitution, that was deleted in the present 1987 Constitution that is the fundamental law of the land? Note that the 1960 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has a 10-year prescription period."